Not PC

. . . promoting capitalist acts between consenting adults.

Saturday, June 16, 2007

Weekend Ramble, June 16

Here's some of what caught my eye for you this weekend.

There's money and power to be made from frightening people. Everyone seems to like a good apocalypse. But fear not, help is now at hand for recovering apocoholics: as Gary Alexander explains, he's "a recovering Apocaholic. I am currently Apocalypse free for nearly 18 years." And you can be too. Welcome to "Apocoholics Anonymous."

Everyone likes a good "end of days" story, which might explain the continuing popularity of Jared Diamond's Collapse despite being based on poor science, poor thinking, and -- as Ronald Bailey notes -- being "Under the Spell of Malthus." As he says, "biology doesn't explain why societies collapse." Read on to find out what does.

You've heard the phrase "good enough for government work"? Well, have you been keeping up with the ongoing investigations of those measuring the forthcoming climate apocalypse being recorded at Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit? You should be. Some of what he and his readers are discovering about the weather stations from which the surface temperature record is processed are examples of "government work" at it's best. Here's just some of the recent posts you might want to investigate:

McIntyre is well known for helping debunk the Mann 'Hockey Stick' temperature record, so he has the credentials. His Climate Audit blog is the place to keep up to date with his latest investigation of "government science."

HomeBizBuzz has a useful 'Warrant of Fitness' test for your business website. How does yours measure up? On the basis of this WoF Test, my own website for Organon Architecture needs work, I must say (in my defence, it was only intended as a temporary solution until I found time enough for something better); and The Free Radical website for which I'm now responsible is becoming embarrassing. Long overdue for updates, let alone the rejig it so desperately needs -- what it really needs is a switched on web-jockey eager and willing to put their services at the site's disposal. If only I knew such a person . . . if only I knew one willing to volunteer their services in such a good cause by emailing me at organonATihug.co.nz . . .

Everyone's had a go at Al Bore's movie by now, and by now everyone should know that it's full of holes, and where those holes are. Nonetheless, there's nothing like having your whole fraudulent film blown apart by a fifteen-year-old girl. Kristen Byrnes follows up her masterful analysis of the warmist science in her Ponder the Maunder project by ripping the Bore a new rear orifice. SeeFacts & Fictions of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth - Kristen Byrnes. Just part of her whole Ponder the Maunder site. The girl's a genius.

You think I bang on about The Bore too much? Then spare a thought for young Canadian high-schooler McKenzie; the poor sap's seen the damned thing four times already this year, none of them by choice.

First it was his world history class. Then he saw it in his economics class. And his world issues class. And his environment class. In total, 18-year-old McKenzie, a Northern Ontario high schooler, says he has had the film 'An Inconvenient Truth' shown to him by four different teachers this year.

And just to add some science to your day as you spend it worrying about your carbon footprint and how much The Bore is banking from film, footprints and flim flam, here's a question for you: Just how much of the Greenhouse Effect is caused by human activity? Come on, how much? Is ita) around 50% ?b) around 28% ?c) around 2.8% ?d) around 0.28% ?

If you answered 'd, ' then you'd be right. As this writer explains "water vapour overwhelms all other natural and man-made greenhouse contributions":

Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this.

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!

Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor).

So as RB wonders, "If anthropogenic C02 contributions to global warming are minuscule ... then how much impact on today's temperatures do you think must have come from a mere 33% increase in CO2 since 1750? One-third of minuscule -- that's what."

And, gee, all that extra carbon dioxide is causing plant attacks! You have to laugh, don't you, and The EcoEnquirer is one place you can do it, with "environmental news that will make you smile."

Tim Blair makes the point however that global warning alarmists make a good point, or at least they would do "once you imagine that every time they open their mouths they're talking not about the environment but about Islamic terrorism." See how he plays out this argument in Just Swap Weather For Terrorism - Tim Blair.

If you're a free market journalist like Tim Blair, then you only have two weeks now to get your entries in for this year's Bastiat Prize for Journalism.

Inspired by the 19th-century French philosopher and journalist Frédéric Bastiat, he prize was developed to encourage and reward writers whose published works eloquently and wittily elucidate the institutions of a free society: limited government, rule of law brokered by an independent judiciary, protection of private property, free markets, free speech, and sound science. .

So there's maybe two journalists in NZ who might be interested. The prize (a total of USD $15,000) might interest a few more. The prizewinning articles from previous years should interest all of you. There is some magnificent reading in the winners from both 2005 [pdf] and 2006 [pdf]; it's well worth downloading and printing out the collection from both years and working your way through them. This is what good journalism looks like, not the flaccid stuff we put up with from most of our local hacks.

Good journalists hunt down the facts before making headlines. These days, bloggers have to check the facts to see whether the headlines make any sense. There's no better checker of facts in the local blogosphere than Lindsay Mitchell, as in this example from a couple of weeks ago: "NZ is the second most peaceful country in the world," crowed the headlines, Helen Clark and even No Right Turn. "Something to Be Proud Of," said the Idiot. Well, maybe not, noted Lindsay. Our homicide rate actually shows us to be the twelfth worst out of 38! Not good. Not good at all. Either for us, of for our journalism.

Tim Blair also reflects on some ironies thrown up by Ayaan Hirsi Ali's recent visit to Australia. He quotes Paul Berman reflecting that

Something like a campaign against Hirsi Ali could never have taken place a few years ago. A sustained attack on an authentic liberal dissident crying out against injustices in remote parts of the world and even in the back streets of western Europe, a sustained attack that appears nearly to have erased the mention of women’s oppression and the struggle for women’s rights from discussion - no, this could not have happened yesterday, except on the extreme Right.

This is a new event. This is a reactionary turn in the intellectual world.

And it’s coming from the likes of lefty feminist Kim, who writes about a woman mutilated as a child, in accordance with tribal Muslim custom:

Her view on Islam is too much coloured by her own experience …

So contemporary progressives are now opposed to someone who denounces barbaric customs such as genital mutilation? By what standard do they call themselves progressive, I wonder? Can anybody help me with that question?

Christopher Hitchens asks a similar question of "Reverend" Al Sharpton" in this debate that you can watch on YouTube: Sharpton/Hitchens Debate - Can Morality Exist Without God? He even makes the question more pointed. If "God's design" is so perfect, asks Hitchens, then why in God's name does that necessitate taking these perfectly-formed gifts from God and sawing off bits of their genitals?! How can that be part of "God's plan"? It's sure got me beat, and it seems to have Sharpton beaten as well.

Now many "progressives" reading this will nod their heads along with Hitchens, so whhy do they give the butchers of Islam a free pass? How about watching this wee You Tube piece from British stand-up comic Pat Condell, who tells us The Trouble With Islam, part and a whole hilarious series of wholly non-sectarian pices from Condell that savage all religions equally. The man's a riot.

Speaking of the antediluvian end of the religious spectrum, Andrei at Ian Wishart's ironically named 'Briefing Room' blog has apparently never heard of the cultural treasures of Classical Greece, or even of the philosophical and cultural contribution made by Classical Greeks to western civilisation. But that's fundamentalist Christians for you: lost in their own book full of fairy tales.

As Paul at 'The Fundy Post' points out, "These conservative chaps and chapesses, the ones who blog about the clash of civilisations and all that stuff, talk a lot about culture but they never show any evidence that they have any of it." A fair point, methinks.

It's possible of course that conservative chaps and chapesses might perhaps spend less time brushing up on culture and more of their spare time reading economics? If so, Tyler Cowen and readers at his 'Marginal Revolution' blog have some recommendations on How to Study Economics in Your Spare Time.

Addiction. If you listened to Nanny, you'd think this was a serious problem needing her urgent attention, and bucket loads of our money. If you listen to Diana at Noodle Food however, addiction seems far less a problem and far more a misidentification.

For many years, I've been annoyed by the extension of the term "addiction" from physical dependencies on chemical substances (e.g. heroin, alcohol) to include psychological dependence on self-destructive behaviors (e.g. gambling, sex). The two are very different phenomena. A person with a physical addiction will suffer from well-defined symptoms with the withdrawal of the drug, such as tremors, sweating, headache, nausea, and hallucinations. A person with a psychological addiction finds the experience of life unpleasant (perhaps very painfully so) without engaging in the destructive behavior, whether in the form of drugs, alcohol, gambling, sex, or whatnot.

My general view is that, as currently used, the concept "addiction" is a package-deal designed to absolve the psychological addict of responsibility for his voluntary actions . . .

Friday, June 15, 2007

Beer O'Clock: Speights Porter

Speight's Porter - the great unknown NZ beer - has just been included as one of Consumer magazine's beer tasting top picks [blogged here at Not PC earlier his week - Ed]. For years the Porter beer has been sitting, almost unnoticed, on the supermarket shelves while people have lingered nearby purchasing it's poor excuse for a big brother - Speight's Gold Medal Ale. The fact that the Gold Medal Ale is not even an ale is surely suggestive of something, but to put the spotlight back on the positive let's look at Speight's Porter.

The positives:• Is it good? Hell yes!• It is available almost everywhere - of course it's on tap at Speight's Ale Houses but it's also at bars, restaurants, cafes, bottle stores, supermarkets all over the country.• On the world's best beer consumer website (www.ratebeer.com), It is currently rated as 33rd best NZ beer, and the top beer from either of the two big breweries - even higher if you remove the ten or so beers that are no longer available. The notes from some of the world's most prolific beerhunters are very encouraging too.• It's pretty good value at around $12-$14 per six pack.• Their Pilsner isn't too shabby either!

The negatives:• Speight's hardly even promotes the stuff, focussing instead on their well-known watery caramel fizz.• Much of it is brewed in Auckland, rather than in the famous open-topped Kauri fermenters that the label implies. I'd love to try these versions side-by-side, if possible.• The sad indictment on New Zealanders is that there is probably more Tui and Lion Red spilled each year on beer-barn carpets around New Zealand than the total volume of Speight's Porter that is brewed.

Stu's taste test:A very dark chestnut with reddish highlights and a light tan head. Coca-like coffee notes on the nose, with a whiff of caramel. A silky mouthfeel that's complex enough to savour but simple enough to enjoy relatively mindlessly (bitter chocolate and a slight hint of fruit). Dry roasty finish with a little showy caramel note. Not as full nor as robust as many porters I'd normally drink, but one of my common "go to" beers in the relative desert of NZ bottles stores and bars.

For proud southern men:For all those proud southern men whose chests are swelling with pride, when hearing that Speight's made the grade, it might be interesting to note that Speight's Porter has, for the last few years, been brewed by a woman - and an English-woman at that! She's a hard road finding the perfect woman, for sure, but Speight's have sure made the grade here: Tracy Banner, who once resurrected the Mac's range from the pitiful state into which it had fallen, has for the last couple of years been heading up the brewing team at Speight's, and has recently moved back to Nelson to retake the reigns at Mac's spiritual home. Hopefully the Speight's craft range will not suffer from her loss.

The New Seven Wonders of the World

Voting has nearly closed on The New Seven Wonders of the World ... and after fifty million votes from right around the world, China's Great Wall and Rome's Coliseum are out in front, and Sydney's Opera House and NY's Statue of Liberty are trailing the pack.Head here to to see the story, and over here for seven votes for your choice of Wonder from the twenty-one strong shortlist. Here's my seven, in alphabetical order:

The art of saying nothing

Wendyl Nissen. And her columns. Has there ever been so much writing about so little for which someone has paid so much? If you too want to see several thousand words used to say as little as possible -- and what Herald on Sunday reader doesn't, apparently -- then head right over to her blog full of "outraged" columns and discover what several thousand words of award-winning journalism look like in the raw. Several thousand short words. Take notes! Be as "outraged" as she is when she publishes them. And see if you can work out the technique whereby she gets those short outraged words to giggle. [Hat tip Mrs Smith at Idle Vice].

UPDATE: Oh dear God! The woman's writing a novel! It's not enough that she fills news space and TV and radio air-time with vapid drivel, now she wants to fill the remainder bins as well! Lawd help us!

(Enter, stage left: The Depression) ...

Seventy-seven years ago today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Smoot-Hawley tariff. Seventy-seven years ago tomorrow the knaves in the Senate followed suit, and seventy-seven years ago on June 17th the ludicrous President Herbert Hoover signed it into "law," thus helping to mire the world for years in a Great Depression.

If you don't know what the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was, then you need to find out before you next open your mouth to give us your wisdom about depressions, or about "market failure", "underconsumption", "too many imports", protection for local industry, price stability, and other destructive delusions that cause depressions.

Top fifty business blogs

The Times has compiled a handy list of the top fifty business blogs. Consider adding a few to your daily reading. Even when they're wrong, the best will surely stimulate. And there's some that just demand a read, like this one, PR man Richard Edelman’s blog, who says, “There is no place in PR for spin . . . We are in the business of presenting reality . . . ”

And another of my favourites: Overlawyered. Sample: “When Sacha Baron Cohen accepted his Golden Globe award for Borat, he famously thanked all the Americans who hadn’t sued him ‘so far’.”

Samson and Delilah - Rubens

Peter Paul Rubens's Samson and Delilah (1609), just one of a series of Old Masters pasted around unlikely window fronts in London in a spot of guerilla marketing by the National Gallery. Story here in the Telegraph.

The critic Andrew Graham-Dixon said: "I can see that they may well appeal to graffiti artists. They invited a Banksy type of intervention and I suspect we are going to get some interesting juxtapositions between the paintings and street art.

"I hope that this idea generates a new street lingo. You can imagine people making arrangements on the phone saying, 'I'll meet you at Whistlejacket at 12.30' and getting the reply, 'No, it's more convenient to meet at Samson and Delilah'."

Great idea. What a shame, if they were intent on using the Samson theme, they didn't choose the far better Blinding of Samson by Rembrandt* (1636). Much better. Much more to my taste.

- - - - -

* Do make sure you click on the smaller picture to enjoy the full-screen image.

Carbon taxes: What if ...

Really? Well, Ross McKitrick -- the co-debunker of the bogus Mann 'Hockey Stick' -- has an idea. Why not link the rates for any carbon tax to actual global temperatures -- indeed, how about linking them to the temperature of the tropical troposphere, where the IPCC's science says the primary CO2 "fingerprint" is to be found [see here for example]?

If you really believe that temperatures are going to rise precipitately, then why would you object -- surely, from your point of view, that's a one-way bet, right?

McKitrick calls this proposal "Calling their Tax (bluff)." The idea is that the carbon tax is pegged to actual measured global temperature just as pensions are pegged to inflation. If the globe warms we pay more; if the globe cools we get a refund. People would really focus on the actual measurements. They might even notice that there has been no warming since 1998. And everyone would take a great interest in long range forecasts and figure out who was getting them right. Those whose "predetermination and bias" always encourages them to predict "warmer" would soon lose their clients and their track record would be there for all to see, no doubt listed in the same pages as the share market and similar "real" information.Augie would be thrilled.

That could bring a little honesty to warmist politics, couldn't it? And too to some of the science.

And with the focus on the troposphere instead of the flawed surface record, we could put paid linking our prosperity to the entirely substandard network of surface weather stations on which the surface record relies, a topic that has been spinning the wheels of McKitrick's co-debunker Steve Mcintyre in many recent posts at his Climate Audit blog. (And check out the beginnings of Anthony Watts' photographic record of the substandard stations at SurfaceStations.Org. Anybody like to send him some photos of local stations to see how they match the likes of the "high quality" station shown below in Marysville, California?)

If models are wrong and solar or something else is causing climate change, then it would have negligible impact. If models are right, then the tax would go up a lot. It’s an elegant idea. Calling everyone’s bluff.Of course, it wouldn’t generate any commissions for lobbyists and brokers or expense accounts in night clubs in Moscow and Montreal; so it’s chances of passage are negligible. But isn’t it a better idea than anything on the field so far?

It is a better alternative to any mitigation plans I have heard and would be something to propose when one wants to determine how much the AGW advocates really want to attack the real problem and how much they merely want to impose regulations.

Many good comments on that thread, including follow up from McKitrick himself. Why not head over and ask him some questions.

If models are right, then the tax would go up a lot." On the other hand, if the tropical troposphere temperatures continue to decline as they have since 2002, then the tax would go negative and turn into a subsidy on carbon emissions. Of course, the alarmists are convinced this won't happen so it shouldn't be an obstacle to them endorsing the tax...

McKitrick has effectively laid down the gauntlet for both skeptics and alarmists by offering them a public policy proposal they both should be able to endorse, since both are convinced it will go their way. Only those of us who have independent moral and practical reasons for opposing any form of tax or subsidy whatsoever should have a good reason for not accepting the challenge.

Many good comments on this post too.

UPDATE 4: Arnold Kling suggests a wrinkle whereby "there is a futures market in the temperature indicator, and the tax is tied to the futures price." Good thought.

Thought for the day ...

Ayn Rand on modern wars

Ayn Rand died in 1982, so she never saw the fall of the Berlin Wall, nor the rise of Islamic totalitarianism. Nonetheless, with some judicious cutting and pasting (which my friend Jameson has done), we can extrapolate from her views on the Vietnam war.

Let’s first imagine Ayn’s horror as the buildings of the World Trade Center collapse in her beloved city after an attack by Communist Terrorists (CT). In the proceeding investigation she learns the terrorists were not partisan to any particular state; however, it is widely suspected that they were supported by communist states in and around Indochina.

Furthermore, reports suggest North Vietnam are producing weapons of mass destruction and that Ho Chi Minh has ties to terrorist organisations - including the mastermind behind the CT attack - creating an imminent threat both to the U.S. and to her western allies.

Now let’s ask Ayn what she would do...

“... at the first sign of an attack by [someone who threatens the US], we should fight them...”

And how hard should we fight them?

“... by every means we have, because it is criminal to kill Americans while not using the better weapons we possess.”

But what if it’s an asymmetrical war and nuking them is ineffective?

“... anyone who wants to invade a dictatorship or semi-dictatorship is morally justified in doing so...”

What should we do now that we've invaded, hanged Ho Chi Minh for war crimes, and discovered there wasn’t any firm link between him and the CT? And what do you have to say to those who are pulling punches, trying to fight a limited war?

“... for us to withdraw would be appeasement. But here is what’s worse: The idea that this country cannot defeat Vietnam is ridiculous, and the whole world knows it. But we are not allowed to use our strength. We’re not allowed to take proper measures - that is, pursue the Vietcong across borders and into its own territory... We are fighting with our hands tied. The idea that America must withdraw from Vietnam is worse than appeasement. It is a shameful pretense. Further, since the world knows we are not physically weak, it would be an admission of moral corruption: that we do not possess a primitive dignity that any nation should have - to it’s own dead, if nothing else - that if it is involved in a war, it should finish it. It must win or be defeated.”

Pittwater House - Utz-Sandy Architects

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

"Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

Anyone over thirty should still remember this moment with goosebumps. Twenty years ago today -- after seven years of resolute opposition to the Soviet dictatorship -- US President Ronald Reagan stood at Berlin's Brandenburg Gate, beside the Berlin Wall, the dividing line between an ideology of darkness and one of freedom, and with these words he called on his Soviet counterpart to end a half-century of imprisonment of a whole swathe of humanity: "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate.

Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate.

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

It was an historic moment. Within two years the East German state was toppling, and by November 1989 the wall was down -- blasted through by forces too strong to be kept imprisoned for so long.

That wall and the division that it symbolised and made possible set up an unlikely laboratory experiment. One one side the semi-free west; on the other the totalitarians who once declared, "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you." They didn't. PJ O'Rourke celebrated the day they didn't, and we did.

We won, and let's not anybody forget it. We, the people, the free and equal citizens of democracies, we living exemplars of the rights of man tore a new asshole in international communism. Their wall is breached. Their gut-string is busted. The rot of their body-politic fills the nostrils of the Earth with a glorious stink. ... The privileges of liberty and the sanctity of of the individual went out and whipped butt.

Reagan's fortitude and this speech played a large part in that victory. The speech in full can be seen here. The words themselves were delivered to the people of West Berlin, and intended to be heard -- and were -- over the wall.

The voices of appeasement who wished the speech were not delivered get their say here.

NB: LEST WE FORGET. Is there a more fitting reminder of the oppressive nature of communism than the Berlin Wall itself?

And is there anything more lemming-like than today's young anti-globalisation protestors? Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got when it's yours ...

Who's next?

Scapegoat. n. One who is made to bear the blame of others. See goat, fall guy, whipping boy.

Helen Clark does scapegoats well, doesn't she. First she puts the boot into the Exclusive Brethren, who she would like us to believe were almost single-handledly responsible for contemporary corruption in politics (anything to divert us from the very real corruption of an election bought with our money); now Mercury Energy, whose "heartlessness" she says (rather than a family's own bad lifestyle choices) is responsible for a woman's death ... anything, any lies at all, to get people's minds off the clusterfuck that her Government has become. Anything to avoid blame being pointed at her.

Still eighteen months before an election. Who's next? Do we all need to keep our heads down? As a blues singer said once, "Every culture needs a scapegoat to clean the shithouse." There's still an awful lot of shit to clean up 'tween now and next November -- if this strategy can last that long.

Economics with Spider Man

Mainstream macro-economists tend to build hyper-theoretical castles in the air based on very little of real substance. Elegant graphs are constructed like the one on the left, which purport to convey immense quantities of information without ever being sullied by the taint of actual facts.

As Mark Twain used to say, "One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."

These floating castles only rarely feel the all-too tangible tug of reality to tie them down, and we can spot these times with ease by the frequency with which pensive central bankers appear in the news headlines -- central bankers often unable to explain why the recalcitrant stuff of reality isn't work in the way their elegant models told them it should.

At such times we tend to hear them blaming the inhabitants of the market for not acting the way their models told them "the market" would. Don't we Alan.

Austrian economists by contrast tend to begin with real human action rather than with hyper-theoretical speculation. Here's one example. Austrian economist John Paul Konig noticed that Spider Man comics rose in price from 1963 to now by a whopping 2400%! Much more than what macro-economists would call "the rate of inflation."

This interested Mr Konig, and lead to questions such as this:

Does "the" rate of inflation really mean anything useful?

Why have Spider Man comics seemingly spurned this rate?

Why have Spider Man comics increased at a different rate to the rate of increase in the price of Time magazines?

And to the printing of dollar bills by the central bank?

What does that say about the relationship between borrowing money and buying comics?

And how exactly does this simple example help explain the different rates of price increase in different parts of the economy -- differences that are largely overlooked by macro modelists?

I'm sure we all look forward to seeing the results of a correlation between photos of Alan Bollard appearing in the newspapers and those situations when reality defies the macro models. I'm sure something can be done with that.

"It is necessary for technical reasons that these warheads should be stored with the top at the bottom and the bottom at the top. For clarity, the top has been labelled 'bottom'." - US Navy safety label

"When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is not our friend." - U.S. Marine Corps

"Cluster-bombing from B-52s is very, very accurate. The bombs are guaranteed always to hit the ground." - USAF Ammo Troop

"If the Enemy is in range, so are you." - Infantry Journal

"It is generally inadvisable to eject over the area you just bombed." - U.S. Air Force Manual

"Whoever said the pen is mightier then the sword obviously never encountered automatic weapons." - General MacArthur

"Try to look unimportant; they may be low on ammo." - Infantry Journal

"You, you, and you... Panic. The rest of you come with me." - U.S. Marine Gunnery Sgt.

"Tracers work both ways." - U.S. Army Ordnance

"Five-second fuses only last three-seconds." - Infantry Journal

"Don't ever be the first, don't ever be the last, and don't ever volunteer to do anything." - U.S. Navy Swabbie

"Bravery is being the only one who knows you're afraid." - David Hackworth

Three pieces, three cultures ...

Three eras, three views of the world, three pieces of art... all examples used by Kenneth Clark in his great work, Civilization. Each represents a culture's own shortcut to their philosophy, depicted in the way they saw themselves and their gods.

The Apollo of the Belvedere (above and below left) -- in Kenneth Clark's words "a world of light and confidence, in which the gods are like ourselves, only more beautiful, who descend to earth only to teach us reason and the laws of harmony."

An ancient African mask (above right) -- of a similar era as it happens -- representing very starkly "a world of fear and darkness, ready to inflict horrible punishment for the smallest infringement of a taboo."

The bronze doors of a medieval cathedral (above), embodying the world of crosses and graves through which bloodless, leprous foundlings (us) are doomed to wander, cursed by superstitions and transgressions. Dark, dead, dull and lifeless. What a fall from man's exalted view of himself and his existence just a thousand years, a few miles and a Hellenistic world away.

These three pieces represent the light, the darkness, and the ordure of each of these cultures. What d you say would best represent the culture of today?

And what say those of you who maintain that great art like this speaks of nothing?

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

New record

The world's most libertarian sport has a new record:

THE round 11 crowd attendances for the 2007 Toyota AFL Premiership Season are the fifth-best single round in the history of the game, with a total of 342,376 fans attending the eight games across the Queen's Birthday Weekend. AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou said the 2007 season had now seen more than three million fans pass through the gates.

Sort of puts Super 14's woes in perspective, doesn't it. Oh yes, and Geelong are now at the top of the table. Just thought you should know.

Anarchism is self-defeating

You'll rarely see a better critique of the nonsense of anarchism than this one, from Harry Binswanger. "Competition," says Harry, "is an economic, not a political, concept; it refers to the voluntary exchange of values, not to the exchange of gunfire."

Consumer beers

David Russell's former fiefdom, the Consumers' Institute, has done a beer tasting. Russell's replacement Sue Chetwin told Breakfast News this morning some of their results, which included awards for, wait for it, Speights Gold and Black Mac -- and I'm sure I heard her say that the latter was a prize for best lager! If there hadn't been a prize to Emerson's brewery for their Emerson'sOld 95, I might have had something more acerbic to say.

Let me know in the comments if you hear the full list of results. In the meantime,whatever you do don't use Consumer magazine as a guide to buying beer. It'll only end in tears.

UPDATE 1: Ah, that makes more sense: Black Mac is best dark lager. Well, in their mind.

Best NZ Draught: Speight's Gold. ["Best" is clearly relative. Second is DB Draught!]

We at SOBA had some input into this. Remember that it aimed at the mainstream consumer. The tasting panel were fairly knowledgeable, and included a sensory scientist and Geoff Griggs, the well known beer writer - both SOBA members. Stu and I also had some input into the article itself, and I think the end result was fairly good. I was a little suspicious of Black Mac's - especially when noting that Colin Paige (Mac's brewer) was also on the tasting panel. ;)

Oh, and the Speight's Porter is pretty damn good. Don't write it off just because it's made by the same crowd who bring you "Distinction Ale". :)

Alan Bollard is insane.

If ever there was doubt that Alan Bollard is out of his depth, then his efforts earlier today supplied the proof. This is just insane, denying the cause of the high exchange rate -- himself and his interest rate hikes -- and seeking to lower it by letting off his peashooter full of our money into the nuclear battlefield of international finance. George Soros and the like will be rubbing their hands with glee.

Nanny State Has Gone Berserk!

Nanny State Has Gone Berserk!Nanny tells us . . .

We may not discipline our childrenWe may not let them eat tasty foodWe must pay for hysterical advertising that treats adults like childrenWe must not watch advertising that treats us like adultsWe may not drive fast cars in industrial areas at nightWe may not climb tall laddersWe may not act in ways that Nanny deems "anti-social"We may not buy vitamins and minerals without a prescription from NannyWe may not drink alcohol in public placesWe may not smoke cigarettes at work or in the pubWe may not smoke marijuana anywhereWe may not ride a bicycle without a helmetWe may not walk a poodle without a muzzleWe may not buy fireworks that go ‘Bang!’We may not put up bright billboards or sandwich boards around our citiesWe may not cut down trees on our own propertyWe may not repair our own property if Nanny says we can'tWe may not plant trees on our own property without Nanny’s approval of the type of treeWe may not paint our houses in colours of which Nanny disapprovesWe may not build houses at all where Nanny says we can’tWe may not advertise for young female employeesWe may not open for business on days Nanny specifiesIf we do open for business, we must act as Nanny's unpaid tax collectorsWe may not fire staff who steal from usWe may not fire staff, whatever their employment contract saysWe must surrender our children to Nanny’s factory schoolsWe must pay for teachers that can’t teach and for centres of education that aren’tWe must believe that Alan Bollard knows what he’s doingWe must believe that our money is not our ownWe must not call bureaucrats “arseholes”We must not offend people paid to boss us around with our moneyWe must answer stupid questions when Nanny asks usWe may not spend our own money in ways of which Nanny disapprovesWe may not defend ourselves against people who try to kill usWe must pretend that snails are more important than we areWe must pretend that murderers are people tooWe must pretend that totalitarian Islamists do not want us dead, that Castro’s hospitals are not abattoirs, and that Che Guevara was a humanitarianWe must apologise to tribalists for things we didn’t doWe must not offend criminals for things they did doWe must apologise to conservationists for things we need to doWe must apologise for successWe must ignore failureWe may not build new power stations that actually produce real powerWe must not offend Gaia by driving big cars and enjoying overseas holidays … unless we’re a cabinet ministerWe may not end our own lives when we chooseWe must pay for art we don’t like and TV shows we don’t watchWe must pay middle class families to become welfare beneficiariesWe must pay no-hopers to breed

The erudite, jovial Augie Auer, meteorology professor-turned-TV-weather-presenter has died. Latterly he achieved notoriety as a debunker of the current Global Warming bullshit, to the embarrassment of his employer, TV3, who are fulltime proselytisers for said bullshit. Augie featured in the last Free Radical. His death is a sad loss for reason, science and life-loving.

It's been argued that the Muliagas acted in a way that their culture demanded of them; that they didn't want to cause trouble; that they were ashamed to embarrass themselves in front of their neighbours by asking for help; that their diet obliged them to eat and eat and eat until Mrs Muliaga died of it...

This is just nuts.

None of us is obliged to do everything, or even anything, that our culture demands of us -- or seems to demand. We all have a choice. We all of us -- every one of us -- has the power of choice, the power to speak up, to act, to say "This isn't good enough," and to choose a better path. If our cultural norms demand -- or seem to demand -- that we act in a way that will lead to our own destruction, then so much the worse for those cultural norms; and so much the worse for us if we choose to close our eyes to reality and to follow those norms instead of what reality demands.

You see, everyone has a choice. The most basic choice is the choice to focus on reality, and to act upon our identification of what confronts us.

It takes just simple stupidity to make basic mistakes, but it really takes "culture" to kill. It takes just simple observation, for example,to notice that your mother is dying, and basic integrity and common sense to do something about that.

It takes "culture," or in this case what's been defended as the "Polynesian mentality," to really evade the obvious and do nothing but sing hymns while your mother dies. Two young adults of twenty-one and eighteen and two boys of fifteen and five watched their mother slip into a coma in front of them, and not one of them did anything at all about it.

That is the real tragedy. Such is the power of bad ideas, bad cultural norms, and bad philosophy.

Now, among those hymns was a real crowd favourite: "What a Friend We Have in Jesus." What a joke. What a sad and tragic irony. As Christopher Hitchens says in the subtitle of his latest book: "Religion Poisons Everything." The "friend" the Muliagas needed as they sat around clapping their hands as their mother's breathing became more difficult, as her speech became more incoherent, as her eyes closed and then her breathing stopped, the friend they needed was not an imaginary sky pilot or the outside chance of some luck to save them -- the "friend" they needed was themselves, and their rationality.

The point being that focussing on some other world or some form of salvation that exists only in the imagination -- heaven, Valhalla, Paradise, Jannah, Elysium -- the abode only of gods and angels and the souls of those who have already "gained salvation" -- necessarily sells life on this world pretty short, and pushes the locus of morality and the object of 'salvation' out into the realm of the imaginary.

What they needed to do was to act ethically, which is what I'm arguing here -- to think about what was happening right in front of them on this world and then to act. Ethics, otherwise known as morality, is the science that examines our choices and our actions, and determines good from bad. In cases such as this one, "the good" and "the bad" become much clearer.

You see, many of you argue that morality comes from religion, and that without religion there is no morality. Many of you argue that morality comes from culture, and that our culture sets our "norms" for us. Some of you have suggested that morality comes from within, from some "fellow feeling" that somehow inspires us to do "good" deeds -- which in this line of argument usually consists of sacrificing ourselves to others.

This is all just so much bunk. Morality comes from none of these, and it most certainly doesn't demand our sacrifice. Where objective morality comes from is reality, and what it demands at root is our survival, and in time our flourishing.

Let me explain.

As I've said here before, when it comes to morality, the basic choice that confronts every living being is the fundamental alternative of life or death: in stark terms, to live or die; either to identify and then take the actions necessary to living, and living well, or to evade the responsibility and to act instead for your own destruction -- or the destruction of your loved ones. All actions flowing from that first set of choices come under the heading of "the good." All those flowing from that second set of choices comes under the heading of "the bad."

(For your first bit of homework, I'll let you decide for yourself under which label the lifestyle and diet of Mrs Muliaga comes, and under which label the actions of her teenage family would fall. Answers on a postcard, please.)

I've said before that life is the standard for morality, the standard by which all actions should be judged (including the act of judging our actions). Let me say it again: the standard for morality -- the rational standard -- is not obedience to what your God or Moses says, or what your priest or pastor or Imam says, or what your neighbours say, or what your own "inner voice" seems to say, or even what you mother says if it defies reason. The Standard is Life, our life, and the lives of those we love. The immediate beneficiary of our actions is not others; it's ourself, and the purpose of such a standard is not to suffer and die, but instead to enjoy ourselves and live.

To turn Descartes on his head (which is no less than the silly French philosopher deserves), the basic ethical principle is this: "I am, therefore I'll think." Because if we don't think, there'll soon be no "I" around to think about.

I hope you think about that.

* * * * *

** For your second bit of homework, if you want to know more about Objectivist morality then you might want to act on that ...

Religion and Morality - a free talk by Onkar Ghate at the Ayn Rand Institute web page.[Free registration is required. Once registered go to the Registered User Page and scroll down to 'Religion and Morality]

Culture Quota Club
To be cultured means to be rational and grounded in reality ZT. The idiocy on your blog about sexuality, homosexuals destroying the 'family', gays being responsible for the Third Reich and subsequently the genocide of millions of Jews and others deserves to be mocked - longly and loudly - no matter what one's political persuasion.

It is highly offensive, and yes, uncultured in the extreme.
Great list PC, enjoyed the read without having time to click a single link (yet).
I smell Ruth....
offensive AND uncultured Zen!You really must toe the Party Line, culture is what "cultured" people define it as.Right now the definition is: "to be rational and grounded in reality".Stay tuned for tomorrow's definition, eh?
Beer O'Clock: Speights Porter
Would beer expertise be a sign of 'culture'? :)

Just saw the Harvey Keitel Steinlager ad. Wonder how much he cost?
Im in Wellington and I cant find Speights porter bottles anywhere!! does anybody know where I can find some?
Its now 2010, its disappeared. Which angers me.
The New Seven Wonders of the World
You place symbolism highly Peter, hence things like the Statue of Liberty...

...but what about engineering excellence? The Concorde? The rocket that took man to the Moon? That big fuck-off bridge in France?

What would Jeremy Clarkeson do?
Jeremy Clarkson would probably notice that what Concorde, the rocket that took man to the Moon, and that big fuck-off bridge in France have in common is that NONE OF THEM ARE ON THE FUCKING LIST!

Other than that, I'm with you all the way. Might even add Fallingwater. ;^)
How about:

1. Helen Clark is still PM
That would not be so much a wonder as a travesty.
Well Eiffel has completely owned teh list hasn't he??Didn't he design the statue of Liberty as well as his eponymous tower?
Hello, i just surfed in searching for interesting blogs on new seven wonders of the world, you have a cool blog. Do keep up the good work. i live far from where you are and its nice to be able to see what people from across the world thinks.

Warm Regards from the Other Side of the Moon.

On a related note perhaps you might find the following links interesting. we're reviewing the best among the competing 21 participants for the new 7 wonders competition. i'll like to hear your take on the subject via comments. i'll be back soon...

ps. if you have your own favourites list or if you'd like us to write about other wonders pls do mention about it in the comments.

Bibby

Kerala, India
i really love reading your posts. you have one great blog.
i just surfed in searching for interesting blogs on new seven wonders of the world, you have a cool blog. Do keep up the good work. take care
Around the world in 52 states
Haha. We got DC!
DC. ha, how appropriate.

What a great map though!

Would also like to see a list comparing corporations to nations. That is also sobering.

Such shows how awfully parochial and straw brained all those US haters are.
The art of saying nothing
well most of the Herald on Sunday is trashy. Most of New Zealand's newspapers, fullstop, are trashy. They are not worthy of our consumption. Too many idiots writing in them.
I must give Harper Collins a try...
Ah, we saw ya sucking up, Oswald. Hah!
Lets say feeding rope...
or trying to get more hits on my site with a mention in a paper ;-)
I don't buy those papers. They are utter rubbish. Muck regurgitated by fools for fools to read and for fools to believe in. And those awful papers are owned by uncivil cads anyhow. Why give them the money? Better to buy a pack of smokes any day.

Benn
What is a 'newspaper'?Also,What is a "Simon Dallow" or a 'Wendyl'?

Stopped reading Sundays when Kere Woodham became a respected and learned commentator!!
Haven't read the Sunday papers for donkeys' years. Crap.

And thanks for confirming what I've always thought regarding Wendyl Nissen. I thought it was just me.

Not only vapid, but whining with it.
(Enter, stage left: The Depression) ...
The only protection we need is from the people who cotton wool us against reality. The type of people who shatterd the educational system into incomprehensible pieces and advanced smothering statism.

A generation ago butter, lamb, and wool bought us the same level of lifestyle as Britain and Australia. We haven't changed much but eeryone else has. Now butter buys a place beside Hungary. Wake up.

Cafe Hayek? Sounds fun.What about the Malthusian lunchbar?
Top fifty business blogs
the best blog i came across till now
Samson and Delilah - Rubens
NZer's most loved movies
Napoleon Dynamite was the 19th most hated movie in new Zealand? Hey, I really liked it. It taught me all sorts of great moves and skills.

Brian Smaller
I've seen about 80 of the top 100 most loved, and I've seen 11 of the 30 most hated. (I can't believe I actually managed to sit through Borat *blech* and Napoleon Dynamite . They're in the same league of shite.)

Movies missing from the top 100, IMO:

A Very Long EngagementSex and LuciaMillion Dollar Baby300Batman BeginsChocolatV for VendettaTeam AmericaThe IncrediblesContactSerenityGattacaCosmosMy Fair LadyMean GirlsBilly ElliotThe FugitiveArt School Confidential

Some questionable ones in there, no doubt. :)
I have seen 96.

96!

What can we make of that?

G
Annoying how Borat is 13th most loved and 2nd most hated.
Party Pills Petition presented
Good thing to finally see ACT and Libertarianz working together on common ground.

Takes a bow.
I'll second that. I was at Victoria when signatures were being collected. Interesting to see that many people's initial reaction was against signing, thinking they were giving approval to party drugs. Yet when you talked about the problems associated with prohibition they could see the futility of the exercise.
Excellent to see the Libz supporting ACT & Rodney. That's how it should be. Despise the Greens and not ACT and also the Libz should stop the usual frequent sniping at Rodney .
FF, you need to distinguish between working together on common ground, and "supporting."

They ain't the same.
I think what FF is suggesting is focus on the *real* enemies of freedom.

Rather than wasting time attacking the few friends that the libz have.

Which is why I've never joined the libz, there seems to be more focus on attacking ACT for being heretics as they aren't all randian objectivists as opposed to those who are actually passing freedom destroying regulation left right and centre.

Obviously this has decreased since the more conservative members have left.

I'd suggest working on common ground more, get those things through... and then work out the rough spots later on. A lot more will be achieved that way.
Far be it from me to spoil this rare moment of ecumenical public agreement, but since the attacks have already begun from the rightward direction, it only seems fair to lob back a defensive salvo from the north ...

... do you really think it would be necessary to attack these "friends of freedom " if they were truly and consistently friends?

As I've said before, I'd be more than happy to stay quiet if we were to hear ringing declarations from the so-called party of freedom that loudly call for:1) Repealing the RMA;2) Legalising marijuana and and end to the War on Drugs;3) Extensive privatisation;4) Abolition of the Treaty of Waitangi, superseding it with a rights-based constitution tying up government; and5) Ending the DPB in three years.

In the meantime, and in the absence of such ringing declarations, I'm happy to work with ACT on the few rather timid occasions when we do agree.

Balls in your court, guys. Always has been.
I wish Libz would join ACT and form a Libertarian caucus within it.As there are many libs already there it makes sense.The trouble would come with certain people trying to make it an Objectivist party...wrong move and doomed to fail.Mixing in the non political elements of Rands philosophy would cause division and splintering...no...just bring the Libertarianism thanks.
What on earth would be achieved by a libertarian caucus with ACT? far better to be a libertarian caucus OUTSIDE ACT and the Greens and National and ....

Just think of us as a combination of two things:1) an external libertarian caucus; and 2)a hairshirt.The trouble would come with certain people trying to make it an Objectivist party...wrong move and doomed to fail.Mixing in the non political elements of Rands philosophy would cause division and splintering...no...just bring the Libertarianism thanks.

It's the other way around I'm afraid. Get rid of the libertarians and bring on the Objectivists. Libertarians as most know them have a susceptibility to associating with right-wing extremists of a broad variety of stripes. This doesn't mean they are right wing of course, but it demonstrates unquestionably that they often have extremely poor judgement, especially regarding whose ideas and agendas they help promote.

Libs now have to deal with a new variey of wingnut - "Christian Libertarians" - on the rise in the US as well as here. Their ideas are absolutely bizarre...they wouldn't get a look-in if it was an Objectivist party.
"Libs now have to deal with a new variey of wingnut - "Christian Libertarians" - on the rise in the US as well as here. Their ideas are absolutely bizarre...they wouldn't get a look-in if it was an Objectivist party."

An Objectivist party is not required or really desirable as Libertarianism is already the practising political arm that Objectivism .Objectivism as a philosophy takes positions on things that are not within the proper scope of politics,Art,Theism/atheism,private morality etc.

A problem I see here on this blog and in Libz in NZ in general is the overlapping of Libertarianism with Objectivist philosophy causing conflict with other libs/liberals where it shouldn't be.Not all Libertarians are Objectivists...Libertarianism has a far longer history before Rand with Mencken,Spooner et el.There seems an unfortunate trend to want to purify/argue the non Objectivist heretics out of libertarianism,not always by choice but by force of argument and wanting to 'win".Its Peikoffism writ small...

The result is people who would be libertarian allies are driven away by Objectivist dogmatism.The trick is to balance the two so that Lib sympathisers are not discouraged and made resentful for not being "pure" enough.In other words when are we wearing our Lib hats and when are we wearing our Objectivist one and how not to cause unnecessary conflicts while doing so.
Sorry, who's this "we" of which you speak, James?
Sorry, who's this "we" of which you speak, James?"

The we "who" repels and cause the Libertarian movement in NZ to limp along gaining no ground and indeed getting smaller and more marginalised PC...Libz and former Libzs like me.What's been done up to now has been a failure and it must change.
"What's been done up to now has been a failure and it must change."

It most certainly has not been a failure. Libz were doing very well until a few years ago, considering NZ's population. They started to lose ground when *Objectivists* were no longer in leadership positions. Judging by the comments on this blog they now have spokespersons who think atheism is faith, that rights apply to the potential, not actual -- in short people who live in an up-is-down, Bizzarro Universe. Go figure - the electorate isn't as dumb as you think.

ACT's positions is little more than the straight conserative line prettied up a little for mass consumption --just goes to show the poverty of political alternatives in this country when some libertarians find themselves having to corral people towards ACT in this way.

Just because we currently have a kakistocracy doesn't mean libertarians should give up and go down with the ship.
"Judging by the comments on this blog they now have spokespersons who think atheism is faith, that rights apply to the potential, not actual -- in short people who live in an up-is-down, Bizzarro (sic) Universe. Go figure - the electorate isn't as dumb as you think."

Any mention of "rights", coming from a Key/Bradford/Clark supporter, is almost funny.This comment has been removed by the author.
FYI I am no longer a Libertarian - nor do I support Bradford or Clark. I DO support the right to live free of violence however, and strongly believe the decision to hit children is not a matter of personal choice like choosing what shoes to wear in the morning. And my oh my what a PR disaster your support of it has been.

I have an interest in the fortunes of Libz as a foundation member of the party, foundation subscriber to TFR, member of the shortlived Free Radical Foundation and sponsor the Fountainhead College Essay Competition.

So you disagree that Libz have lost support since being invaded by those with contradictory premises? Facts are inconvenient things Sus - and YOU are part of the problem.
Mike E "Which is why I've never joined the libz, there seems to be more focus on attacking ACT for being heretics as they aren't all randian objectivists"

Hardly. Non-Randian Objectivists (of which I am one) are more than welcome in the Libz.

Also, the Libz, at spend hardly any time "attacking ACT" Look at this search...

http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/?search=ACT

I can't spot a trend.

Ruth "Libertarians as most know them have a susceptibility to associating with right-wing extremists of a broad variety of stripes. This doesn't mean they are right wing of course, but it demonstrates unquestionably that they often have extremely poor judgement, especially regarding whose ideas and agendas they help promote."

This doesn't sound like a very smart strategy. Not to promote what you believe in because some nut-jobs might tag along? And the fact that they might won't be aleviated by extra Objectivists. The spekaer at the recent anti-anti-smacking rally attended by many gob-bothering lunatics was an Objectivist - Lindsay Perigo.

James "The result is people who would be libertarian allies are driven away by Objectivist dogmatism."

Here, as with the sniping about sniping about ACT, you are living in the past James. Both assertions had some merit three or more years ago, but under the current leadership I can't see how this is happening in the party at all. Quite the reverse in fact. It's safe to come back James :-)

What you should do, to paraphrase a friend of yours, "is focus on the *real* enemies of freedom.

Rather than wasting time attacking the few friends that [ACT] have.
Ruth, you don't need to tell us that you're no libertarian.

But once again we disagree. There is no place for contradiction within libertarianism. Libertarianism is about removing the state from people's lives. That's it. You either understand that, or you don't.

Ironically, it's you who seems to be contradictory more often than not. You openly support John Key who doesn't seem to know whether he's Arthur or Martha. He makes all the right sounds in supposedly making things easier for producers, while calling for such action as govt-imposed carbon levels and continuing greenie-red RMA nonsense. Typical middle-road mush.

And as for 'anti-smacking PR disasters', I sometimes wonder what you're on. Clark and Bradford were on the political ropes. Bradford had backed herself right into the corner by stating that she would "pull" her bill should any amendment be tagged onto it ... and at the eleventh hour, your man steps in to save them! He single-handedly saved their bacon!

And as for libertarian 'decline', you ignore that prior to the last election, Lib policy became Act policy became Nat policy in a number of important areas.

When did you last see the Nats screaming 'Nanny State' and 'property rights matter' and 'freedom matters', etc, before then? Eh? They started to fucking remember just what it was that 'mattered'!

It's about ideas! It's certainly not about compromising principles.

Facts *are* inconvenient, aren't they.
Eric - Perigo is a conservative with the serial numbers filed off. Check out SOLO for his views on immigration etc. He is the reason why I stopped supporting Libz. Peter needs to be party leader again - he has the media exposure via this blog and is a TRUE Objectivist, even though I don't agree with him on some issues.

Sus - you are a joke. I know more about libertarianism and objectivism and have more political contacts than you ever will - and you are full of contradictions.

Go back to sleep.
Ruth,

You have a habit of popping up and attacking the Libz, and then vanishing when I start asking you to produce some facts to substantiate your venom.

Here is the post I made to DPF's blog, which appeared to exorcise you from that particular thread:

Ruth,

I'm not exactly in the Libz loop any more, not being a New Zealander any more. But I'll fire P.C. an email and ask him to remove you from the mailing list.

Once again, though, I note you didn't respond to any of my questions. Your reply on NRT was actually quite polite & detailed (& so I replied in kind), but you still haven't provided a shred of evidence regarding:

- your previous claims re. the Libz [That we have had to expel neo-NAZIs from our membership]

- your claim that I am a racist

- your implied claim that I am an anti-semite for hating John Key (an odd claim given that I turned up to protest in favour of Israel, but what the hell, don't let facts get in the way of a good story)

> Your politics in respect of this Subway issue > are the typical extension of the ego of a > particularly spoiled two-year-old

Leaving aside the fact that that is an ad-hominem attack, and another neat sidestep around the issues at hand ... how exactly would you characterise the politics of someone who is caught stealing, files a personal grievance for being fired, and is then happy for a bunch of socialists and unionists to protest on her behalf?

Any chance of some answers this time around, or will you once again run off with your tail between your legs?
Oh, for goodness sake. I couldn't give a toss about your 'political contacts'.

You've openly supported state interference, and then talk about understanding libertarianism.

Go away, Ruth.
"When did 'profit' become a dirty word?"
Apologies for being off-topic, PC but this item in the Daily Telegraph UK is interesting:" Old masters are hung in the street"I'll try to post the link.Telegraph
grrr....didn't work.Anyway, it's in www.telegraph.co.ukWhen did 'profit' become a dirty word?

Profit has always been a dirty word to Matt McCarten , Sue Breadford, Jeanette Fitzimons & Co.
Profit became a dirty word when the people who couldn't make any figured out what the other guy was doing, and had a fat cry about it.
Kerry needs to go after the government for taxing the shit out of gas so that small businessmen can have a fighting chance at staying in business. While he's at it, he might go after the government for taxing the shit out of small businessmen so we have a fighting chance at SEEING a profit.
Carbon taxes: What if ...
Meanwhile such a tax would be revenue neutral for any government. For every dollar gained from carbon tax, other taxes would come down - so that it isn't use to change the size of the state.
Good idea....what say you warmists?
It would be a great idea if, as is so often posited by hard-core skeptics, the goal of carbon tax was to increase government revenue.

But the idea is that it is a punitive measure to leaven the effect of carbon emissions such that we MITIGATE any temperature rise. The whole thing hinges on the presumption that by moderating our carbon output we can head off predicted temperature rise - not totally, obviously, but in part.

So says this warmist.

DenMT
No, in fact it's posited on the presumption that the hotter it gets, the more carbon "costs." And the cooler it gets, then the the more carbon is needed.

Of course both premises come straight from the warmists, who maintain that there is in fact a causal connection between the meagre amount of CO2 man produces and rises and falls in temperatures.
This type of proposal is always worth looking at. It is not dissimilar to environmental contingency bonds which i much prefer.

These bonds are environmental levies which are then placed into a bond structure (ie invested) until the money is needed. So the money is ringfenced to deal with the specific cost (dairy farming is the most obvious candidate for this) but more importantly if the cost is less than forecast then the money can be returned plus interest.

It keeps govt paws off the money and keeps it directly connected to the cost.

The problem with carbon taxes is they wont really work anyway as demand is not elastic in the oil market (people need it and will pay the price).

So i like the way of thinking here but carbon taxes are not the answer in the first place.
I like the McKitrick proposal. I was shocked while in Canada a couple of weeks back to hear Elizabeth May, the Green Party leader, argue for a small carbon tax (on the order of 17 cents per litre of gas; gas prices there are about 10 cents cheaper than here after correcting for the exchange rate) that would be entirely offset by reductions in income and other taxes such that the proposal remained revenue neutral. McKitrick's proposal is one better, but I have a hard time imagining the Greens here arguing for a revenue-neutral carbon tax.
Thought for the day ...
Ayn Rand on modern wars
"Nonetheless, with some judicious cutting and pasting (which my friend Jameson has done), we can extrapolate from her views on the Vietnam war."

Really? Rand is unavailable for comment. To extrapolate her views in this way oozes vanity and arrogance.

You need to revisit these 2 articles:http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4964 andhttp://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4447

Is "Jameson" a skinhead? He is one evil looking mutha. Gives me the creeps.
Come on Peter, you missed the most important point she made.. that the Vietnam War was crazy and strategically pointless. Same goes for Iraq, and Rand would have been against both (but for Afghanistan). I can say this with confidence, and I'm sure you know I'm right.So post some real critiques as many of us Ayn Rand fans are sick of the pathetic advice on foreign policy coming from Objectivists.

see ARIwatch.org for more!
I too think it is unfortunate that some Objectivists shoehorn Rand into taking the position of self-sacrifice in never-ending war in Iraq.

See http://capmag.com and look up Leonard Peikoff's essays - some remarkably prescient from years ago.
Pittwater House - Utz-Sandy Architects
"Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
Reagan , Thatcher, Roosevelt , Churchill are my political heros of all time.
I was tidying up my study room the other day and I found this piece of a rock that looks like rubbish to me ad was about to put it into the bin, until the rightful owner alerted me that it is not rubbish, but it is part of history. A history that Ronald Reagan helped to end in East Europe....piece of rock that looks like rubbish to me...

A piece from the Berlin Wall.
I think I might have given that piece to the rightful owner ... or was that her own piece?

PS: Roosevelt??!!! What are you on, man?!
Pity it could not be put to good use--like heaving it through the 9th floor window. See Tim Selwyn for technique..I think I might have given that piece to the rightful owner

Yeah, I had been informed that the piece came from you.
I was fortunate enough to be in Berlin when the wall came down in 1989. It was fantastic - one of the highlights of my life. The only bad thing was that my wallet and camera were stolen by the German girl I spent the night with!

I currently work with a young guy who spent his first 16 years living in East Germany. Making sure all the windows were shut before talking about politics, or listenign to West German radio, shortages of food and basic supplies, being forced to wave flags in support of people who were repressing you. He said to me that noone who lived under communism really looks back with regret at its passing.

Brian Smaller
"Roosevelt??!!! What are you on, man?!"

Sorry, FF. That's what I thought, too!

"The only bad thing was that my wallet and camera were stolen by the German girl I spent the night with!"

Ah, BS .. that'll teach you to (do more than just) talk to strangers! :)

You brought back memories. I was living in the SF Bay area & meeting someone for dinner in town that evening. Came out of the pkng bldg & saw dozens of people crowded around an appliance store window watching live TV. I asked what was going on and several said - almost in awe - "the wall's coming down!" & let me through to the front. Couldn't believe my eyes.

Floated to the restaurant on cloud nine.
"Ah, BS .. that'll teach you to (do more than just) talk to strangers! :)"

One of life's lessons - lock your wallet in the room safe before removing trousers.

Brian Smaller
Who's next?
The strategy will last that long PC. No matter how many people abuse it, it will always work.
She is a goat. I mean, take a look. Ferral or what?
Economics with Spider Man
Military wit & wisdom
On one level, very funny.On another (speaking from experience) all too bloody true!
Love the last one

JC
City of peace - leadership coup to celebrate!
Three pieces, three cultures ...
It doesn't seem fair to pick something from Greece that's super cool and compare it to something from Africa that's kind of creepy and something from Europe that's just telling it how it is. Why not use one of the magnificent cathedrals from the middle ages? Each of these items were created for different purposes. There are probably tens of thousands of other, more inspiring, works of art from these cultures that could be chosen and compared. It's possible that Clark has just chosen pieces that reflect his own misconceptions of these cultures.
I don't think you can fault me for showing too few cathedrals, or for not writing about them lyrically enough.

But that's not exactly the point. The cathedrals themselves were built in opposition to life this earth; they were built soaring to heaven, intended in part to make men small.

But even that's not really the point. Each of these threee pieces shows a view of MAN -- a view that represents and embodies the view of man either prevalent or dominant in each of these cultures.

Can you say that the cultures as described were NOT as they've been described? Do you think anyone would have any trouble identifying the culture from the description, or matching the description to the piece of art?

Finally, if you genuinely believe that these other cultures from these other times really do have "tens of thousands of other, more inspiring" depictions of man that are more representative, then bring 'em out.

A depiction of man from Hellenistic Europe, about 200AD.Another African depiction of man from a similar period.Another depiction of man from the Europe of the Dark Ages, ie., pre 1000 AD.
Far from reflecting Clark's "misconceptions" of these cultures it seems to me that the works shown are a perfect shorthand way of depicting them. Something art does so very well.To argue that they reflect his misconceptions anglo you'd have to show examples that were both typical of the cultures and very different indeed to those PC has shown.Good luck with that. :-)
PC said...Finally, if you genuinely believe that these other cultures from these other times really do have "tens of thousands of other, more inspiring" depictions of man that are more representative, then bring 'em out

Well, I probably haven't shown you my mum's tapa clothing pattern, have I? If you're interested, then I can organise a one weekend trip to my sister's house to view my mum's beautiful Polynesian art work in East Auckland, where all her (my mum) handicrafts & art work are stored since we moved to NZ. Some of the pattern are similar to the bronze doors of a medieval cathedral, shown above.
I don't believe that any one work of art can truly reflect an entire cultures personality although I do have some sympathy with the views expressed here. I do question Why the Greeks are allowed to present a work of art that represents an ideal form that Apollo was? Apollo was a god and a very beautiful one too. The poor Africans have some ritualistic mask that probably depicts an evil spirit chosen for them. The Europeans have a work of art that depicts the fall of man and is essentially just an illustration of a Bible story. Each culture should have been asked to present a piece that represented a similar ideal or theme. For example the Africans could have a statue of a warrior and the Christians an image of the Madonna and child.
New record
I like Geelong. And it be a good city to live in as well.

Who are the Warriors to which you refer? Indeed there are none in Auckland, surely? I'd heard of the Worriers. Worry they should.

Perhaps you meant to refer to them.

Sione
Anarchism is self-defeating
You need a picture of the anarchists from the movie Big Lebowski. Quote. Anarchist #1 "That's not fair!"

That's about all you need to know about anarchists.
"Objectivity requires one to prove that one is acting within one's rights; they do not want to be held accountable to anyone for anything—not even regarding their use of physical force. They damn governmental retaliation because it is objective; they demand to be "free" to use force on whim."

Exactly - and one of my main problems with Libertarianism, and libertarians in general.

(Incidentally Ian Grant's latest magazine Parenting with Confidence mentions Montessori in an article on choosing schools, and notes how it is growing in popularity here. He also has an article on alternatives to smacking - stating that discipline in critical to good parenting, but smacking is not good discipline.You should read it - your comment that one is not allowed to discipline one's children is disingenuous and quite wrong.)
"they do not want to be held accountable to anyone for anything"

Abject nonsense. The flip side to personal freedom is personal responsibility for one's actions.

In other words, total accountability.As the commenter says, "the only criticism of the essay would be ... that he lumps together all 'libertarians' as though they were anarchists."

He does this with good reason Peter - nearly all of them are - or else they are garden-variety conservatives like Tracinski. Actually the only libs I 'know' who are not anarchists or conservatives are you, Diana Hseih, and James Valliant.

Until that changes I side with Binswanger, Rand, and Schwartz.
Libertarians are anarchists with something to loose.

:P
"You need a picture of the anarchists from the movie Big Lebowski."

They were nihilists.

Nihilist:"We are Nihilists, Lebowski. We believe in nothing. Yeah, nothing."

The Dude: "Oh, that must be exhausting."
Greg: the joke isn't funny if it's about anarchists, 'cause anarchists can and often do believe in fairness. The joke was about nihilists who, by definition, believe in nothing. If you believe in nothing, you can't believe in fairness. That's why it was funny.

There's actually pretty serious academic debate about the feasibility of libertarian anarchy. Bryan Caplan argues that private defence agencies would work out just fine. Tyler Cowen then argues that the network of such agencies (which would be necessary to solve inter-agency disputes) would either be powerful enough to punish rogue agencies (like the Mafia), in which case it could also punish anybody chiselling on cartel prices and consequently become the government; alternatively, it wouldnt' be strong enough to punish rogue agents and the whole thing would collapse into bad anarchy. Caplan then replies that there's an important cost difference in punishing cartel defectors, where every individual agency has an incentive to trade with the defector, and punishing a rogue agency, where nobody has an incentive to trade with the rogue. He consequently provides an existence proof of the feasibility of libertarian anarchy. Whether the existence of a feasible and desirable libertarian anarchy indicates that that's the most likely of the three relevant options (that it degenerate back into the state, degenerate into bad anarchy, or stay nice) is an open question. 3 days of the week, I agree with Caplan; the remaining 4, I agree with Cowen. Y'all ought to read the Caplan-Cowen debates though if you're interested in the topic.
Consumer beers
We at SOBA had some input into this. Remember that it aimed at the mainstream consumer. The tasting panel were fairly knowledgeable, and included a sensory scientist and Geoff Griggs, the well known beer writer - both SOBA members. Stu and I also had some input into the article itself, and I think the end result was fairly good. I was a little suspicious of Black Mac's - especially when noting that Colin Paige (Mac's brewer) was also on the tasting panel. ;)

Oh, and the Speight's Porter is pretty damn good. Don't write it off just because it's made by the same crowd who bring you "Distinction Ale". :)
The recommended list is not a bad list of beers to try out this coming cold weekend. A few of these (Munchner Dunkel, Old 95 and the Long Black have made the PC "Beer O'Clock" posts in the past).

Consumer only looked at widely available beers in the following broad categories: NZ-style amber lagers (e.g. all the mainstream caramel beers), dark lagers, porters, stouts and other dark or strong ales.

I know at least three of the people on the panel and have very good faith in their beer knowledge.

Slainte mhathStu
Alan Bollard is insane.
Yep. Guess who is pulling his strings, [and its not King Canute]
I remember being in London when John Major (then Prime minister of the UK) announced that he was pulling out of the ERM (European Exchange rate Mechanism). This happenned after a week of efforts by the Bank of England to keep the pound high. The Bank all but exhausted its reserves in the attempt. It failed.

This has hallmarks of the same foolishness. When are people going to wake up and demand that the dollar be gold backed?

As for Witch-doctor Bollard, what a prat. He's about to get raped. The man is a Bollock.

As for the little grey history teacher that appointed him- should have been on the end of a kicking years ago. He's single mindedly managed to destroy more wealth than ANY other person living in NZ.

Benn
I was there too, Benn.

I was in a meeting just above Leicester Square to discuss a building we were constructing there, looking out over a part of the square with an 'Evening Standard' salesman.

As the 'Evening Standard' headlines changed every thirty minutes, and with each new headline shouting out yet another hike in interest rates (ending the day as I recall some five percentage points above where they'd started the day), the faces of those in the meeting room slowly went white, and any interest in adding another floor to the building on which we were working vanished.

There were some very relieved faces there next morning after John Major and Norman Lamont admitted that the panic was over, that they couldn't fight George Soros, that the ERM was unmatchable, and that mortgage rates could go back to something more sensible.
I was there too except i was the mug quoting stg to all and sundry. it was without doubt the craziest few days of my whole time as a trader. The BOE in one ear and speculators in the other. Remember though the UK had technical duties to keep Stg/Dem within the parameters set by the ERM.

Note that once the lower band broke at 2.78 Stg/Dem eventually it traded down to 2.20 before heading back to 3.20.

Currencies go up and go down in their own time and at their own speed.

Whilst its understandable to want to intervene especially when the price spiked in thin markets, it goes against current policy which is clearly biased towards tighter conditions.

Globally rates are cranking up and this intervention makes no sense at all.

Good interventions come together with an interest rate move. The problem here is that the next move is the wrong way for the currency.

Go figure.
There is no such thing as a good intervention, really. As a matter of fact they're all bad.

Sione
Nanny State Has Gone Berserk!
Spot on, PC. Remember to fish this out for use prior to the election next year.
Absolutely right on target.
Gosh. What a list. Yes, Nanny ought to be fired, but then, we're probably not allowed to.
A wee birdie tells me that Muriel Newman's next newsletter may be addressing this very thing this week.
And businesses must act as unpaid tax collectors that get major penalties if they make even small mistakes.

And we may not make even minor renovations in our own home without paying taxes and fees and gaining permission.
Here is sonething from a book.

"Subvert them. Contest everything. Every traffic ticket, every invoice, every regulation, subvert it all. Always change the way you spell your name. Use all sorts of nicknames. Nothing bothers administrators so much as when you tell them your name is something like "Pighole" or "Pixiesmith" or "UmmagonnastickU" and then keep altering the name slightly during the conversation. There are always the favourites like "Baron Von Krupp" and "Juan Krugeryahooppee" as well. Plenty of people use those and have been entertained. join in the fun. Tell a good story and when they can't find the file say you'll call back in an hour, then don't bother. Call back a few days later and start all over again. Remember to cough and wheeze. If you can manage to pass wind in a small interview room, do it. Make it silent. Make it stink. Do not comment or apologise. Do another one. Remember it's natural. If you can get away with it, ignore the regulation that obstructs you completely. For example, the car is neither registered, nor warranted. Make up thy own stickers. Dump inorganic rubbish in front of councillor's houses. For things you can't ignore, make everything as vexatious, difficult or as complex as possible. make lots of hard and pointless tasks for the administration. Always send in letters (never emails, never phone calls- never be available for easy contact). Letters should be hand written, feature poorly constructed sentances (to the point of unintelligiblity), plenty of unidentifyable stains and at least one page missing. Always refer to somone else who works in there who is handling your case. Be vague about this person. Be definate about what they promised they'd do for you. Ask why it was not accomplished already. Be polite but imprecise. Be slow and a little thick. Above all do what you were going to do anyway."
That's good advice, aninomosu! What's the name of the book?

It reminds me of Harry Browne's message, before he was U.S. Presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party. From the back cover of How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World - "Bestselling author Harry Browne shows you how easy it is to break out of the traps that may be preventing you from having a truly free existence and live the way you want to without having to change the world or the people around you."
New house by Steve Kornher, San Miguel, Mexico
I just love ferrocement, and can't understand why it isn't more widely used.
Me either. It's a fantastic material -- shame the bureaucrats don't like it.
It looks like a space-ship, similar to a scene from the movie Cocoon.
I think you've seen too many low-rent movies. ;-)
That's brilliant, it's like being inside a skeleton. If I were an Osteopath (is that what you call it) that would be my surgery.
Hi PC

I haven’t commented before but always enjoy your architecture and art posts.

This one is very cool. It reminds me of the architecture in the Dr Seuss books. And the stairs of M. C. Escher’s drawings.

But it’s like a fantasy house. If I lived here I might stop noticing reality and start doing stuff like believing in God. ;-)

GloryA
Hate it. It reminds me of a creeper that needs cutting back all the time. Creepy.

But then I recoiled from Gaudi's cathedral in Barcelona on sight, too ...
Sorry , this house looks like you are living in side an intestine.
I knew it reminded me of something creepy and it's just struck me ... Devil's Snare, in Harry Potter-land.

Shudder.
I wouldn't want to live in it--it would be like a funny answering phone message--once the novelty wears off it just drive you crazy.

I do think there is a Dali influence, which is very cool.

G
Steve got his start working in cement working for a stone mason in the high Rocky Mountains. He is a NATURAL! Mother Earth News was his favorite reading material. That house in the Pinery is still standing strong!
Sad news about Augie Auer
I just heard it too. What a sad and untimely loss. Such a personable character. And an important voice.
Bugger

His views on climate change were pretty different from my own, but he was a very colourful guy - the global warming debate will be all the drier and more staid with his loss. RIP.

DenMT
My condolences go out to his family. I heard Augie a few months back on ZB fielding calls from listeners about climate science, and while I didn't agree with his views, I appreciated his ability to effectively communicate this difficult subject to people who knew little about it.
The Climate Science Coalition as well as TV3 viewers will be saddened by his passing. Such a bright weather man as well as a very intelligent individual.
No Ethics Please, It's Culture
Let's put your subjective objective in perspective. There is no objective morality, let alone reality. Reality and morality lie in the eye of the beholder.

Ethics is not a science, otherwise you'd find the Philosophy Wardrobe in the Science Block and not in the Arts Ivory Tower. You cannot stick ethics in a test tube to distill goodness from it.

{quote}To turn Descartes on his head (which is no less than the silly French philosopher deserves), the basic ethical principle is this: "I am, therefore I'll think." Because if we don't think, there'll soon be no "I" around to think about.{/quote}

The sun is, therefore it thinks? Bah! The ethical way to sit Descartes on his head is 'I doubt therefore I think.' At least, that's my objective opinion.
"Let's put your subjective objective in perspective. There is no objective morality, let alone reality. Reality and morality lie in the eye of the beholder." -- zippy gonzales.

Inspector Darwin looks at the two arguers, both apparently unwilling to give up their positions. "Listen," Darwin says, more kindly now, "I have a simple notion for resolving your dispute. You say," says Darwin, pointing to Mark, "that people's beliefs alter their personal realities. And you fervently believe," his finger swivels to point at Autrey, "that Mark's beliefs can't alter reality. So let Mark believe really hard that he can fly, and then step off a cliff. Mark shall see himself fly away like a bird, and Autrey shall see him plummet down and go splat, and you shall both be happy."

I think, PC, that when people say that she acted like she did for culture, that the too are acknowledging that the culture isn't a good thing.
PC said...that their diet obliged them to eat and eat and eat until Mrs Muliaga died of it...

Food is good, just a little balance by exercising and this applies to all race.

It takes "culture," or in this case what's been defended as the "Polynesian mentality," to really evade the obvious and do nothing but sing hymns while your mother dies.

It is not a clear cut as that PC. Some do adapt and use reason (including myself), and still the vast majority of Pacific Islanders (PI) don't and still cling to cultures because that is their only identity. The vast majority of PIs who can't adapt or learn in a new environment (NZ), these will always lag behind the rest who are ready to adapt (myself & others as an example).

It took me a while to adapt to my new environment in this country. I was paranoia at some stage in the past, that all the whites are racist against the color of my skin. Once I started making friends with white people, I realized that my fear of racism was all in my mind , that is , it was internal and not external. Thus breaking out of my own circle (friendships within my own ethnic group), I started to see things differently from the other side. This means that I start to see reasons, which is something I would have never ever understood, if I didn't break out of my cultural bindings. So, I don't blame the Muliaga's for failing to understand all those points you have made in this post, because, that is all they know. Perhaps if the Muliaga's (& the majority of PIs) will break out of the circle and explore the other side as I have, then I think that they deserve to be criticized as you do in your article here, since you can expect that they pretty much know how to add : 2 + 1 = 3, and there is no excuse. In the meantime, they still have some vague idea that : 2 + 1 = 3.

I have a suggestion: How about you invite the Muliaga's to attend those Libertarianz monthly drink, so that you can give them some lectures on the subject of Objectivism and Kantian Philosphy.

I am sure that the Muliaga's will be a convert, since they now opened their eyes and see reasons.
Zippy Gonzales , off-topic question, but I can see that the icon you are using is the well-known Feynman diagram from the theory of Quantum Electro-Dynamics (QED) , which was developed by Nobel Laureate Physicist Richard Feynman.

Are you a Physicist? Just curious.
I agree with the lead post - just as an aside I would like to say that this has been a good example of appalling corporate risk management. Mercury have bought themselves millions of dollars of bad publicity for the sake of $160 odd - which is unforgivable and heads should roll.

It is also worth noting that those calling for corporate manslaughter laws are part of the problem - not the solution. Corporate manslaughter abrogates personal responsibility even further - you can't put a company in jail.

You open the door for "It's the COMPANY'S fault - not MINE". Collective guilt simply does not exist.
The sun is, therefore it thinks? Bah! The ethical way to sit Descartes on his head is 'I doubt therefore I think.' At least, that's my objective opinion."

I think someone said something about having an opinion...but that's only my opinion.

PS....Zippy....I'll be round later to rob your house and violate your nearest and dearest....you of course won't object will you? After all morality is subjective so there no right or wrong to worry about...
james said, "Mark shall see himself fly away like a bird, and Autrey shall see him plummet down and go splat, and you shall both be happy."

So, you haven't seen Terry Gilliam's Brazil yet?

Falafulu Fisi said: "Are you a Physicist? Just curious."

No, I could never adapt to the calculus required to understand it. I maintain an interest in physics all the same, especially chaos theory and quantum mechanics. Both act as a bulwark in political science (which is, like ethics, an art not a science) against Newtownian determinism of the mechanistic model.

Richard Feynman was an also an interesting human, physicist and bongo player.

James said "I'll be round later to rob your house and violate your nearest and dearest....you of course won't object will you? After all morality is subjective so there no right or wrong to worry about..."

Depends what your reasons are, but they'd better be bloody good reasons to pillage and rape me and mine. The Final Solution was entirely logical and they have the receipts to prove it.

If you'd like to boast you have no grasp of reality, then that rather rules you out of intelligent discussion with those of us who do, wouldn't you say?
Do we know for sure that the family did recognise their mother was dying, and that it was culture that killed her, or was that the media's interpretation?

How did she get herself to hospital in the first instance?
I think the problem is our avoidance of awareness - when we avoid awareness in contexts when it is needed.

We do not see the connection between our avoidance of awareness and the emptiness of our marriage, the disappointments of our career, our boredom and fatigue, the unhappiness of our children etc.

To live consciously is not always easy, and I don't think this family were grounded in reality.
"Depends what your reasons are, but they'd better be bloody good reasons to pillage and rape me and mine."

Why do I need to funish you with reasons...? Its all subjective so anything goes for any reson at all...

"The Final Solution was entirely logical and they have the receipts to prove it."

Please explain how it was logical to carry out the final solution with all the drama,cost,time,and consequences involved.
None dare say that this blog theme over the last two weeks lacks compassion and is veering into stereotyping! It's been dissapointing.

When some old white codger dies of a gastric bleed becasue he's too proud to phone the ambulance at 3am what 'culture' is that?? Is that the "ANZAC mentality"?-------------
No, it's a prevelant culture of the elderly.

It's why poor old dears who have had asthma for three days but "didn't want to bother you" only call an Ambulance as a last resort while others pack their bags before they call for a big white taxi to hospital.

I've noticed older people have a much stronger desire for self-reliance. It is a fantastic quality, that unfortunately couples with a lack of medical knowledge, with tragic results.

But self relince is being bred out of us by increasing government "support." Can't wait to see what the Kiwisaver generation will be like when they're old...

And a culture of self reliance is different to a culture ashamed to show weakness. A bit of education lets a self reliant person know when they're beat, but education can't change a culture which is ashamed to ask for help, which uses prayer as a solution to a problem.
I'm of two minds. On one hand culture may well have killed her, but she and her family were not unintelligent, and she may well have decided that enough was enough. She couldn't work, she was terminal, the bills weren't getting paid and she may well have decided to just let go without fuss, in her own bed and with her kids at hand.

JC
It's no good indicting religion in general for what happened. That's simply too broad. I doubt even the Muliagas' church (located in the odder reaches of Christianity) would have told them to sit around having a singalongaJeeezus instead of calling an ambulance.

I know people in my native Britain would wait for NHS treatment until it killed them, such is their faith in state provision. Are we to say that we should never ever rely on state provision?
There is no objective morality...Wouldn't a concept like morality only apply to humans as they are the only animal capable of conceptulising. I think morality is connected to the fact we are human.Reality and morality lie in the eye of the beholder...yeah right!When some old white codger dies of a gastric bleed becasue he's too proud to phone the ambulance at 3am what 'culture' is that?? Is that the "ANZAC mentality"?

That's a culture of fucking stupidity too. As I said on another thread, my very palagi grandmother fiercely defended her privacy and independence. Very much of the old 'good fences make good neighbours' school, where you minded your own business, lived within your means and paid your bills on time, kept a happy medium in all things, and didn't wash your dirty linen (or anyone else's) in the middle of street.

That became rather hard when she became a widow, living alone in her 90's - to put it mildly. Towards the end, she couldn't provide for herself the kind of round the clock assistance and medical attention she required, and much as it stung her pride she moved into residential care. Pride is all very nice, but not when it kills you.
That wasn't freudian was it Ruth?
As a young child I was told that the size of my belly was directly related to how much I'd "invested" in it. If I wanted a big fat belly I'd need to invest consistently and for a sustained period in order to achieve the result I desired. On the other hand should I want a big fat bank account then I'd need to direct my resources toward achieving that instead. I'd need to invest consistently and for a sustained period in order to achieve the result I desired.

So what have we here then? What choice was made? Fatness to the point of termination with unpaid bills mounting up....hmm...

If one wants to live, this would indeed be an unethical direction to take- an unethical goal to pursue. Years and years of unethical behaviour and it's not as if the results of all this eating is an unknown surprise. Oh well, the results must have been worth the effort.

"Invest in your future."

Benn
Now that's love...
I guess that burning your children alive out of love for God, is what Tim Wikiriwhi mentioned here at Not PC before as bad Gospel.

Am I correct here Tim? If it is not bad Gospel as you stated previously, then do you think you could possibly abide by that Gospel if it is not a bad one?
Falafulu Fisi.

The Bible is Anti-Human sacrifice.Baal and Moloch worship involved child sacrifice.It was expressly condemned by Judaism and Christianity as evil. It never glorifies human sacrifice.There was no sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham.It was a necessary parable that Abraham was faithful to carry out showing an indisputable 2000 year prophesy of God sending Christ as a sacrifice understandable to the whole earth.

The only true gospel for today is St Paul’s gospel “… Believe that God sent Christ to die for your sins and he was buried and rose again on the third day in victory over sin and death.“Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved…” (1 Cor 15vs1-8, Rom 11vs13) It is the gift of God, not of works. (Eph2vs8,9)Salvation is a free will choice requiring no other religious duty.The salvation of the Christian age of grace today does not require “we endure unto the end”.

Any notion that today God will accept us on any other terms other than Pauls gospel of grace is a false gospel e.g. Being circumcised and keeping the ten commandments will not get you into heaven today. Thus any scripture or biblical event misconstrued out of it’s proper context becomes a heresy.

When this age ends and the time of Gods judgment begins with the rise of the Anti Christ and the number of the beast, then salvation will require faith plus works that evidence your rejection of Mammon and your commitment to Christ.You must be prepared to reject the number and be killed. “…Whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall save it…” (JC Luke9vs24)This is not human sacrifice. This is facing murderous Anti-Christ hate and being faithful to your beliefs rather than submitting to the Evil Ungodly world.Even the death of Christ was an act of Religious lynch-mob murder not some sort of sanction for ritual murder!

When Christ rose from the dead was a moment of history of such immense weight, its impact has made him the central and most important figure of world history.This was a physical ‘Real’ event that had a measurable effect thus there is evidence for you Falafulu fisi And by recognizing the story of Abraham and Isaac as being fulfilled by God the Father and Christ you have an indisputable historical proof of prophecy and Divine Revelation.Only pride stops a man from asking for the salvation of God.
Tim said...The only true gospel for today is St Paul’s gospel

Tim are you suggesting that the publisher of the Bible should downsize it to print only St Paul’s gospel ? You're going to have a very thin bible, then if the publisher is going to downsize the number of pages to only a few tens.

When Christ rose from the dead

No, Tim. Christ never rose again from the dead. I find it funny, that you dismissed all chapters in the Bible because they're bad except St Paul’s gospel , but not ready to dismiss the resurrection of Jesus, which is anti-reason, anti-logic, anti-physics, etc. Don't you see that you're self-contradictory in what you believe?